Slashdot Mirror
Richard Branson Reveals Prototype For Supersonic Passenger Aircraft (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Sir Richard Branson on Tuesday heralded the rebirth of supersonic passenger flights with the unveiling of a prototype aircraft promising 3.5-hour flights from London to New York for an "affordable" $5,000 return. The billionaire Virgin Group founder said his Spaceship company would help Denver-based startup Boom build a new generation of supersonic jets and reintroduce transatlantic flight times unseen since Concorde was scrapped. Branson is partnering with Blake Scholl, a pilot and former Amazon executive, who will later on Tuesday unveil a prototype of the new jet in a hangar in Denver, Colorado. While several other companies, including Boeing and Lockheed Martin, are developing new supersonic jets, Scholl said his plan was likely to beat them to market as it does not require any new technology that would need approval by regulators. Scholl said test flights would begin in southern California, with plans to launch the first commercial departures in 2023. If the plans stick to schedule, Boom flights will launch 20 years after British Airways and Air France decommissioned Concorde. He said Boom would succeed where Concorde failed because developments in technology and lighter materials meant tickets would be much cheaper. Boom will have just 45 to 50 seats, compared with Concorde's 92 to 128. Scholl reckons the demand for affordable supersonic flights could make this a $100 billion market. He said his plane could work on 500 different routes, but would concentrate initially on London to New York, San Francisco to Tokyo, and Los Angeles to Sydney.
It's what we engineers call a 'paper airplane.'
No. The One Percenters who will ride those planes simply don't care about you shitfolk.
The most profitable routes for supersonic aircraft are mainly over oceans, so the aircraft won't be supersonic over land for those routes. I don't know how they would handle a Los Angeles to New York route, though.
Since this is for the 1%, post Brexit there won't be a London where the 1% want to be. Try Frankfurt to New York.
At $5000 a seat, you think they give a shit about sonic booms disturbing people?
Interestingly, women and minorities will be the most impacted by these flights.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Boom is a really stupid name for an aircraft company. That's like naming a ship company Drown.
No. The One Percenters who will ride those planes simply don't care about you shitfolk.
Concorde proved that there aren't enough one-percenters to make supersonic aircraft economically viable. People want cheap fares and direct flights. Even most rich people aren't willing to pay a thousand dollars an hour for a quicker flight.
Most rich people I know are cheapskates. That's how they got to be rich.
it just won't be supersonic over land...
They're already moving the banks due to brexit, even if brexit isn't confirmed. ..you think this will have flights next year already? take a look at the mockups. the mockup photos in the article don't even match the claims. the plane is a two seater and the article says 90 seats - so whats up with that?
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
$5,000 is the price of a business class seat on the routes they're talking about (not even first class), and it's a quarter the price of the Concorde. It just might be cheap enough to get a self-sustaining amount of traffic, which will provide an ongoing incentive to develop cheaper and cheaper planes. It's getting past that initial wall that's the problem, which the Concorde never did.
Sonic booms are resolved two ways. First, the same way that the Concorde did: use it on trans-continental flights. North America to Europe and Asia are the two obvious examples. Second, modern technology and computer simulation enables a reduction in the intensity of the sonic boom. What's available today is a decent reduction from the Concorde, although it's still nowhere near sufficient to enable supersonic flight over populated areas. But with a large fleet of supersonic aircraft flying, you get a powerful incentive to push that research forward.
Yeah, leave the atmosphere. No air - no sound.
Didn't Branson already promise space based travel? Where are the rockets/planes for that? It's been several years.
The price quoted it pretty close to a business class ticket on a traditional flight, so the market may actually be there.
Not true; in fact the reverse! In its later years, (once BA and Air France had figured out that people did not actually care how expensive the tickets were, and racked up the prices), Concorde flight were very profitable.
Of course, this ignored the massive R&D costs that were written-off by the UK and French governments and could not be recovered due to the small number of units produced.
Concorde was retired mainly because Airbus decided to stop offering maintenance...understandable because it was 1960s technology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The name Boom was chosen after comparing favourably to Kablammo, Plunge, Missing, FreeFall, Disintegrator and Fireball during test marketing.
Do I have to check my privilege?
Or can I carry it on?
Interestingly, women and minorities will be the most impacted by these flights.
How so?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Concorde's reputation as a luxury plane might be a bit off, as well a the common perceived reason for its demise. I recently read this interesting post about interesting Concorde facts, although there are a lot more.
According to some sources, it was killed mostly because it was more profitable to operate a more conventional plane, not because it was not profitable at all.
This plane was such a marvelous piece of technology, and there is plenty of very interesting reads on it all over the net. I am glad some are trying to revive supersonic jets, although I hope they will make them in a "greener" fashion.
If you have to ask, make your way to the Greyhound station.
USB, USB, USB!
No. The One Percenters who will ride those planes simply don't care about you shitfolk.
One Percenters can afford to own their own planes (although the lease/rent them for the most part). They dont land at London Heathrow with the rest of the peasantry, they land at Farnborough and have a limo to take them into central London.
For this to be viable it needs to be affordable for the upper middle business traveller. The C level execs of smaller companies or the regional directors of larger ones.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
An aircraft that burns even more fuel per mile than a normal one and nicely pollutes the stratosphere to boot. Perhaps Branson should just stay on his carribean island and enjoy the sea - before the hurricanes get so bad due to climate change that his house is blown away.
And yes, I know there are plenty of people on this site who don't think human induced climate change is real and I respect your right to hold that opinion. Try respecting mine and don't reply with a load of insulting bile. Thanks.
You are confusing the 1% with the 0.01%. There is an elite within the elite. The super-rich. The oligarchs and billionaires. The Forbes 500. The guys who consider themselves so far above everything, their private airplanes have underage prostitutes as a complimentary service for guests.
The 1% can afford $5k and consider it a good investment if it saves them some time and gives them the privacy of a small plane filled exclusively with people of their type. The reason golf clubs have a $10k yearly membership fee - it keeps out the peasants.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
You must mean the 1% of the 1%. It only takes 400-500K of household income to be in the top 1% in the US. The idea of someone (technically a household, most 1% households are two income) earning only 400K and flying private is ridiculous.
I am in a 1% household (500K/yr) and I rarely even fly business class unless someone else is paying for (NYC->London b-class ticket is $3-6K depending on when and who you fly).
"Upper middle class" in your eyes seems to be the top 2-3%, and the "1%" in your world must be the top .05%-.01%.
I rarely even fly business class unless someone else is paying...
Yep, and that's the point. That's why it's called "business" class - because somebody else usually pays for it (a "business").
No sig today...
These aircraft will whoosh over their heads and the massive sonic boom will ruin their hair (women) or weave (minorities).
No sig today...
I used to like sonic boom. Haven't heard one in years though.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
TFA is a bit light on details, but it looks like they have based their design off research done by JAXA and NASA into reducing sonic booms. Maybe it's not that bad.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I don't want complain but the problem with most flights is not flighttime but the total time. You have to get to the Airport, check in, wait in line to go through the security check and wait at the gate. How about som innovation here?
The bulk of both Air France and British Airways Concorde fleets were purchased at full price (their original fleets were fully paid for, but both airlines were offered aircraft at a discount that other airlines dropped orders for), so the comment about development costs is neither here nor there - the Boeing 787-8 is unlikely to recoup its development costs, even with over 400 ordered (the 787-9 and -10 will, however), but its a fantastic plane in service and airlines arent responsible for its development costs.
Not going to comment on most of that, but I do agree that there's a market. It's probably a wise decision that they went for a smaller aircraft - weaker sonic boom and more frequent flights for a market of a given size (and the ability to serve lower-traffic markets). Combined with modern tech for aerodynamic efficiency, propulsion, sonic boom modeling, etc, and a long list of "lessons learned" from Concorde, I wouldn't be surprised to see this - or at least one of their competitors - succeed.
It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
They solved that by strapping Ryu to the airplane, so he keeps blocking em with hadoukens.
They spent five years developing their first commercial craft... and then accidentally destroyed it on its fourth test flight, killing the copilot and seriously injuring the pilot. Ironically, the crash had nothing to do with it being a rocket; a combination of too few safety lockouts and poor pilot training led to the air braking system being deployed at too low of a speed. Which was a brand new huge setback. The fact that it took five years to even get to that point was itself due to a series of delays, including a complete redesign of the motor (really, the first team should have just read the research on hybrid rocket engines, they would have learned that polybutadiene, while a classic binder for solid rocket fuel, does not make a good hybrid fuel).
It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
Corr: that was five years from the unveiling to the flight failure. It was nearly a decade since the initial announcement. Oh, and I forgot one major issue - they had a tank explosion in 2007 that killed three employees. It's just been a trouble-plagued process. But they're still working on it.
It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
Even most rich people aren't willing to pay a thousand dollars an hour for a quicker flight. Most rich people I know are cheapskates. That's how they got to be rich.
Let's ignore the executive jet industry. These jets are owned by rich corporations and people.
Rich people like value (real or perceived). You forget that Concorde was "one class". There was no business, economy or first on Concorde. And while the service was better than economy class on a standard transatlantic flight, it was much below what first class provides. Concorde was literally falling apart. Seats were damaged. People would steal everything they could so they could have a souvenir of "Concorde" to show their friends.
Yet rich people seem to have no trouble forking out MILLIONS of dollars for the ability of a) being able to travel where and when they want, b) NOT being groped and herded by the TSA and immigration/customs officials and c) not having to mix with the rabble. If you think rich people are worried about paying a price and that's why Concorde failed, you don't understand rich people.
It's not how much money you want, it's what you are offering me for my money.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Read the article. They basically want to do flights where most of the travel route is over the ocean.
I'm more interested in which engines they are using. Aside from military engines I can't think of any single engine available today which has an afterburner (which they will need if they want to hit Mach 2+).
really, the first team should have just read the research on hybrid rocket engines, they would have learned that polybutadiene, while a classic binder for solid rocket fuel, does not make a good hybrid fuel
How come? It seems they started with it then switched away and back several times. What's wrong with HTPB---honest question?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Burn rate, mainly. Solids are very different from hybrids in that the oxidizer is intermixed with the fuel, and thus it's easy to get any burn rate you want, from "none" to "rapid unscheduled disassembly" ;) With hybrids, combustion only occurs on the surface as a surface/gas reaction and the rate of reaction there is limited, so it's much more of an issue. With polybutadiene, this means having more channels and thinner walls to get the burn rate up, which increases the odds that chunks will break off as it burns, among other problems. It's generally recognized that the optimal situation is to have a fuel that readily forms a low viscosity melt layer which can be easily aerosolized, dramatically increasing the surface area. So, for example, fuels like paraffin wax and polyethylene work very well for hybrids. Combustion enhancers like aluminum significantly help as well.
It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
[citation provided]
Gary Powers ==> U-2 ==> subsonic
The idea of someone (technically a household, most 1% households are two income) earning only 400K and flying private is ridiculous.
You're thinking "private luxury jet", but that is not the only way to fly privately, so it's not as ridiculous as you think. The numbers on that page are for a low-end plane (an older Cessna), but $400k/year is the low end of the 1% so it seems appropriate. The highest number on that page, $32k/year, is well within the reach of someone making $400k/year if they want it.
Maybe I'm one of the few but I don't think $5k (for round trip) is that big of a deal considering it's "business class". Go look up a normal business class ticket, not going to be significantly less. Plus, many of the people that would use this would have the ticket purchased by the company.
I'm low on the totem pole at my company but when I have to travel to Asia, it's business class. If I remember correctly my ticket to China was $4,500.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
You can't hear a sonic boom on the ground from a plane that is 45,000 to 50,000 feet high, get a clue.
It's almost as if you didn't do any research at all before posting that.
No sig today...
Ah I see, thanks for the answer!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
By what measure can the influence of leaders and executives at major corporations be considered "disproportionate"? One would think it is entirely logical that it is significantly greater.
Ezekiel 23:20
It makes sonic booms, and burns fuel like crazy. Meh.
I hope they don't think that they are going to supersonic that over my house!
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
$5000 is the J price to London (usually LHR). If you're going to Dublin the same ticket can be had for closer to $2500.
Military sonic booms are 120-190 dcbls. Concorde was 110 dcbls. Booms will be less than 85 dcbls, or about garbage disposal. So yes, progress has been made.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"The reason golf clubs have a $10k yearly membership fee - it keeps out the peasants."
Agreed, but your $10k figure is way low at many locations.
Just another day in Paradise
A Cessna 182/172 is in no way comparable to private jet ownership. It's not really a good option for any flight longer than about 500 miles, and your cruise speed is often only around 100mph (ground speed)- meaning a flight that would be two hours in a jet is an all-day affair. On top of that, you are grounded or diverted by weather that a jet piloted by a professional wouldn't even flinch for. In reality, most of the people who own light Cessnas (or more commonly, fractional ownership) use them to putter around on Sunday afternoons or for short trips to nearby cities.
Close, but no. Even small commercial planes require all passengers to go through TSA screening. You're thinking of private air service, which is, iirc, mostly exempt from the traditional passenger TSA screening.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
You don't have to be rich to fly a Cessna. Go to nearly any USAF base, and you'll find an aero-club, where young airmen making poverty wages take flying lessons. I know, I got my license at one.
Just another day in Paradise
"Yet rich people seem to have no trouble forking out MILLIONS of dollars for the ability of a) being able to travel where and when they want, b) NOT being groped and herded by the TSA and immigration/customs officials and c) not having to mix with the rabble. If you think rich people are worried about paying a price and that's why Concorde failed, you don't understand rich people. "
It's human nature. If you don't have to wait, stand in line, put up with shitty food, etc., would you? It's the same reason that many people refuse to take public transportation in areas such as the Washington DC Metro...the commute is twice as long (and less reliable), you have (seriously) stinky people, and why the hell would I want to stand on a frickin' train when I can sit comfortably in my vehicle?
Just another day in Paradise
"And, sorry to rant, just step back one second. If sonic booms from supersonic high flying aircraft are so loud, then how did the SR-71 engage in "covert" surveillance of the USSR? You'd just listen for it and know it was there. Of course, you need something to shoot it down (see Gary Powers, etc...) and I wonder if it's coincidence that Russia is known to have the world's best SAM systems?"
You might know the SR71 was there, but fat chance you could do anything about it. As for the U2, it flies ~20k ft lower, and much, much slower.
Flying at 90k+ feet, how long do you suppose it took the sound to reach the ground? How far away do you suppose the SR-71 was by then?
90000/1100ft per sec = ~81 seconds. .61 miles/sec .61 x 81 = approximately 50 miles.
SR71 top speed = ~2200mph or
And, that's assuming you're directly under the flight path.
Just another day in Paradise
It is logical, that they have influence within their respective organisations.
It's the influence on politics, media and society that is disproportionate, because being a good manager or CEO or investor or funder doesn't say one thing about being good at politics, guiding a country or making politics.
The reaons the world is in such a sorry shape is exactly that we allow managers to run it, instead of visionaries and idealists.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Even ignoring the rampant anti-semitism there, nobody in the elite was killed during the holocaust. Name one super-rich who died in a concentration camp.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Fact is rhe plane will go supersonic at a hight where no one on the ground will hear the boom. ...
No research required
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I used to frequently fly overseas on business class. Most recently, from Atlanta to Dubai...that was a $5k ticket that the company paid for. As a 2%er, I'm personally too cheap to pay that kind of price for my own flights, even though my knees typically hit the seat in front when I'm sitting in sardine class. 14 hours in a tiny seat is cruel and unusual for anyone 6" or taller.
Just another day in Paradise
Aside from military engines I can't think of any single engine available today which has an afterburner (which they will need if they want to hit Mach 2+).
You don't need an afterburner. The Rolls Royce Olympus 593 was in fact capable of pushing the concorde all the way to it's maximum speed without the use of the afterburner. However that meant the concorde spent a long time in the high drag trans-sonic region, so it was more efficient to use the afterburner to exit that regime as quickly as possible.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
nobody in the elite was killed during the holocaust.
The Holocaust wasn't aimed at the rich. But the purges of Stalin and Mao were. They killed plenty of rich people. My wife's laoye (maternal grandfather) owned a furniture factory in Beijing, and was quite prosperous. He was shot in the back of the head in 1949.
Don't confuse human nature with statistics.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The "visionaries and idealists" set has a large overlap with "loonies and cultists." I don't want the government headed by someone having "visions".
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Don't we have anti-satellite weapons now? You don't have to be faster than something to get in its path and explode.
The ability to do supersonic flight involved design compromises, one of which was high takeoff noise.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Uh no. Concorde boom us 110 dcbls. That is also why european gov did not allow Concorde to run supersonic over their area.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
That's why modern government systems have checks and balances and separation of powers.
Which work great to keep idealists pragmatic, but fail utterly when all branches of the government are run by the same type of bureaucrats.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
That may be true (don't know enough about chinese history to say for sure), but the GP was talking about jews. Stalin and Mao didn't target jews.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
And $400k/year is in no way comparable to the top end of the 1%, but you missed my obvious point so I'm guessing you won't understand why that matters.
I was responding to a blanket statement about private flight being out of reach to people making $400k/year and a low end plane is the appropriate thing to be looking at when talking about private flight for the low-end of the 1%.
And I was replying to your blanket statement. When people talk about "private flight" in this context, they are talking about it as a rich person's alternative to flying commercial. My point is that owning a Cessna is not an alternative to flying commercial, but a completely separate hobby.
A Cessna 182/172 is in no way comparable to private jet ownership. It's not really a good option for any flight longer than about 500 miles, and your cruise speed is often only around 100mph (ground speed)
Say what? A 182 cruises at around 170 mph - are you 'often' flying into 70 mph headwinds?
Did you know that the sonic boom from the space shuttle entering the atmosphere was audible on the ground?
Stop! Dremel time!
It depends which 172/182 you are talking about- they've been making them since the 1950s. They've made faster and slower variants (fixed gear/retrac, turbocharged non-turbocharged). My dad used to own a 1970s vintage 172 and now owns an 80s vintage 182 (both fixed gear). We took plenty of trips in it. With the 172, it was not at all unusual to bump around at sub 100mph ground speed with a 30-40mph headwind. A 30-40mph headwind is pretty common at altitude. The 182 is a bit faster, but I've never seen 170mph groundspeed except with a tail wind. Bottom line, Cessnas are slow.
The Space Shuttle does not create a 'sonic boom' when it enters the atmosphere. ... it would be something like 50 - 60 miles away from your point of observation: no way you ever would hear it.
It is far far far above sonic speed when it enters. So it csn't produce one.
And if it would
When it is producing a sonic boom it is already approaching the landing site and probably below 10,000 feet hight and probably less than 5 miles away from the landing site.
Perhaps you should read up 'what' a sonic boom is, and how it is produced.
Hint: stuff that flyes far faster than speed of sound does not produce a sonic boom. Hm ... why might that be so ...?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Stop! Dremel time!
Upper management and salescritters. Companies will pay for them. I've seen a manager at an ostensible non-profit take a $10k itinerary
No idea, I would say the "facts" are wrong :D
50,000 feet is about 17km, which is about 12miles.
Over ten miles you hear no boom. To far away. And if it is in the "hight" the distance when you can't hear anything is far less as air density/pressure decreases with hight. And that means the distance sound travels is much shorter. ...increasing speeds above Mach 1.3 results in only small changes in shock wave strength...
That is not a sonic boom. Sonic booms only appear when the "noise generator" is very close to the speed of sound, does not matter if slightly below or slightly above or just right.
A plane flying mach 1.3 or 2.0 or 10.x does not create/track a sonic boom.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
A sonic boom is the propagation of a shock wave through the air. The shock wave is generated when an object exceeds the speed of sound, whether by a little or a lot. It does of course attenuate with distance (and height), but they still are created and can be heard. Maybe you're saying that by the time it goes that far it's weaker, which I agree with, but it's still technically a sonic boom.
Stop! Dremel time!
The shockwave the space shuttle creates during reentry: is no sonic boom.
And a sonic boom is not really a shockwave either.
And yes, in the example regarding a Concord or the new plane in this article: if they are so far away as we talked about the, sonic boom is to dim to be heard. I lived 20 air bases, I have a pretty good idea how far a plane is away when you hear it or its sonic boom.
A sonic boom, as I said above, is not really a shockwave. That is a layman's explanation or just a coined term. A sonic boom is created like this:
Lets assume a plane is 10 "sound seconds" away.
It flies directly at you with exact speed of sound (could be a few percent above or below, would only minimal change the effect).
Now, the sound it produces at -10 seconds will reach you in exactly 10 seconds. The plane as well, but that is irrelevant.
The sound produced at -9 seconds will reach you after exactly 9 seconds, obviously.
And so on when the plane has distance 1 second, the sound it produces will reach you after one second.
So: which "piece of sound" does reach you first? The one produced when the plane was 1 second away, or the one produced when the plane was 10 seconds away?
Obviously all the sound produced of the course of time when the plane was 10 seconds away till it is over you: reaches you at the same time. This is a sonic boom. And if it is "hard enough", then it can be a shockwave.
The sonic boom goes in all directions, the shockwave is focused into the direction the plane is flying.
And beyond the fact that it is VERY LOUD in short distances, up to 5 miles or more hearable: it vanishes with the square of distance like any other sound.
So: a plane breaking the sound barrier in 45,000 feet, that is roughly 15km, which is roughly 45 sound seconds is to far away to be heard. The sound needs 3 quarters of a minute to even reach you. So far away it is (not taking into account the thin air up there, most likely that makes it a distance of over one minute)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
A sonic boom is a shock wave. When an object is going faster than the speed of sound, you aren't going to hear it until the shockwave reaches you. If it temporarily goes supersonic, it will produce a shock wave that continues on without it, which will weaken over time. If it continues flying at the speed of sound, it will travel with the shock wave, maintaining its strength. If it continues going faster than the speed of sound, it will leave a trailing shock wave.
You can visualize it like the bow wave from a boat. The faster the boat goes, the more the wave become conical behind it. When that wave hits, that's the sonic boom. It's the increase in pressure caused by the shock wave that creates the "boom". Depending on the shock strength, it may not be very strong.
A "shock wave" can be of any strength. It's just an instantaneous change (in pressure, temperature, etc.).
Stop! Dremel time!
I explained you how a sonic boom is created.
And something that is already faster than the speed of sound does not create one ... and "sound wave" it has in its wake is only a few percentages of the strength of a real sonic boom.
As I said before: calling it a shock wave is misleading at best: or simply wrong.
A "shock wave" can be of any strength. It's just an instantaneous change (in pressure, temperature, etc.). :D
If you want to put it like this
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
And I'm explaining to you what it actually is. I have a couple degrees in Aerospace Engineering. I'm giving you the technical, scientific definitions. If you choose to define them your own way, you're free to do so, but you're wrong.
Stop! Dremel time!